Big Ten perception
Posted January 8th, 2008 by Ron
The perception of the Big Ten nationally is not good, and it did not get any better after Ohio State got smacked around Monday night by LSU.
But the real problem with the Big Ten has little to do with Ohio State.
Ohio State and Michigan most years (not this one for the Buckeyes) schedule, at least, one nonconference game that might give them trouble.
The other teams in the Big Ten don't. Wisconsin, Iowa, Penn State don't venture too far from home and rarely pull off a big upset on the road against a nonconference team. When was the last time that Wisconsin played at LSU or at Auburn or at Georgia. Michigan always plays Notre Dame and usually plays another tough game.
What gave the Big East a boost this season was South Florida beating Auburn at Auburn. West Virginia beating an eight-win Mississippi State team, beating Maryland on the road.
Winning the past three BCS games that it has been in helps the Big East, too, but scheduling nonconference road games against other BCS schools is the real difference maker.
The Big 12 saw its middle teams in Missouri and Kansas win their bowl games.
There is a way for the Big Ten to break out of its funk, and the answers don't all need to come out of Columbus.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I guess I just don't understand why everybody cares so much about these conference to conference comparisons and perceptions, at least with the big six BCS leagues. When you think about it, what difference does it really make most of the time?
If two or fewer teams from any of the BCS conferences go undefeated they will likely play for the national title no matter who they are or who they played. This was evident this year as Kansas was in position to play for the title if they could have beaten Missouri and won the conference championship. Comparing conferences doesn't make a difference when looking at the middle tier bowl games either as almost every bowl slot has a conference tie-in and will go to that conference if a school is available.
The only situations I can see where it really makes much of a difference is when there are three or more undefeated teams from BCS leagues (which is not all that common) or when determining which conference will recieve a second BCS bowl bid (but this year showed that those bowls already tend to go toward specific conferences based on who historically has played in those games with Illinois in the Rose Bowl and Georgia in the Sugar).
So, once again I guess I am at a loss to understand what all this conference comparison with the high profile leagues like the SEC and B-10 is all about. Conferences as a whole never play each other on the field, only teams from conferences do. Football is all about the match-ups between the individual players and coaches regardless of the league they play in. It always has been and it always will be, but the media seems to be trying to make it a big issue for some reason.
Now, that all being said, I do understand comparisons with the conferences that are not part of the BCS. These leagues have to be perceived to be of a certain level or they will get left out in the cold as far as the BCS and other media exposure is concerned. It is the fans of the non-BCS schools that should be more concerned with how their league is perceived. For example, does anyone think that if they had gone undefeated that Central Michigan would have been thought of highly enough in the polls to earn a BCS berth if Hawaii hadn't gone undefeated in the regular season? Personally, I doubt it. That, to me, is where conference perception becomes most important, not with something like which BCS league is strongest.
Hopefully what I have said here makes sense.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
It makes perfect sense.